[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23367[/url]

Thats F$^KED up!

Sad.  Very sad.

I'd love to see the tape, but if they REALLY wanted to get the word out, why would they charge $25/tape?  

Godspeed

Tin foil hat on!!!!!!!!

Face it TWA's 25-year old plane with a time-bomb flaw in the fuel system went down because this flaw caused an explosion in an empty fuel tank with only fumes in it.

There was no missle, no UFO, and no cover-up.

Let it up to the offending company and some ambulance-chasing media troll to try to start something.

Let those poor people who died rest in peace and their families and friends try to heal.

Translated:  All you conspiracy freaks make me rich.

Why is their word on what happened any more credible than anyone else's?  What you want to believe will determine who you listen to.  Flight 800 may well have been brought down by a terrorist missile (not a Navy missile) but this guy is just trying to make a buck.

drfcolt

The final NTSB report only speculates that the wiring in the center tank caused an explosion. They could not prove it, they offered it as the most likely cause because they had nothing else to offer. They could not rule out other causes either.

Without some official explanation the issue would not have quietly died. So one has to wonder why they felt compelled to offer an explanation that they did not believe conclusively caused the accident, an event that has not been reproduced anywhere.

I am not a conspiricy theorist, I find the concept of a missile strike unlikely. I thought most anti-aircraft missiles were proximity-fused, which would hardly lead to an internal explosion.

I don't think we will ever know what bought the plane down, perhaps it was a bomb on board that they could not find evidence of.

Madkiwi

When I worked on the Navy's Standard Missile project at General Dynamics in 1980, we used to watch classified films of the missle taking down aircraft duing the Vietnam War. The kills were always the result of an impact -- proximity fuses were not used. In fact, they used to brag about how the warhead wasn't even needed. Maybe the newer models are different.

By the way, anyone near the launch site with experience in these matters would know it's a missle by the noise. Those things are loud as hell. They would see a bright white streak, followed by a very loud bang, even at 15,000 feet. And being that the missle is 10 times faster than the 747, the radar people would know without a doubt what it was.

Didn't a four seven blow on the runway because of it's center tank in SE Asia 2 months ago? [rolleyes]

What about the Egyptian airliner that went down for no good reason, and you could hear the co-pilot praying to god to forgive him just before the plane went into a nose dive into the ocean?

Anyone who suggested that maybe the co-pilot intentionally crashed the plane was called a bigot and sterotyping Arabs, but the investigation was just concluded and guess what?  It looks like the co-pilot intentionally crashed the plane after all.  

Don't believe anything you see on the internet. It's all a bunch of crap, mostly from conspiracy minded nuts.

So fwiw, several days after the plane went down, I heard a stranger tell about a phone conversation with a friend in the area who told him about the local TV stations. It seems they were interviewing local fisherman telling stories about watching navy fighters doing live missile firing excercises in that area at that time. Then, within 24 hours, those stories disappeared.

I'm no conspiracy freak, but I remember seeing footage of one of the wings being pulled from the sea and noticing a large, round, gaping hole in that wing, and thinking "man, that had to be from a missile."  No, I'm no expert, but why is it so difficult to believe that the Clinton administration covered up a terrorist attack for reasons yet to be divulged?  They lied about everything else, didn't they?  

The reason I disagree with the missile theory is Clinton.
The worm would use a terrorist attack to further clamp down on our liberties. The gas tank story slows down his agenda.

I think I was the ONLY person watching TV the night the plane went down....
Within the first hour or so of the plane going down, there was footage of burning debris in the ocean...
I remember seeing that, while witnesses were being interviewed over the phone by news reporters...
I specifically remember a military type guy telling the reporter that there WAS a "military exercise" in the area that involved dropping flares from high altitude for missles to be fired at, but he said  the exercise was not in "THAT SPECIFIC AREA"..."It was to the North" I believe he said...

Am I the only one that remembers seeing this on TV ???
I remember, for several days after the crash, I was angry because I couldn't believe they never mentioned the phone interview with this guy!!!

I NEVER heard that story again....

Don't the TV stations keep tapes of every single news report they put on the air ???
It should be easy to find this info
It was on CNN I believe...

The US military was firing live missiles around the busiest airspace in the world?  That doesn't make a lot of sense.

"The truth is out there" [:D][:D][:D]

Hmm, that's kinda strange. I know they test live missiles with drones and some drones are set up to drop flares, but these are for air-to-air missile tests, not surface-to-air missiles. Most surface-to-air missiles are "bean riders", meaning they follow a concentrated radar beam to the target, at which time they may switch to internal radar or infrared.

When I flew B-52s, we used to occasionally test fire our quad .50s over the ocean off the east coast.  We had to schedule a 200 mile long by 25 mile wide firing range (Prohibited Airspace area) weeks in advance, we had to clear with seveal ground radar sites, with our own radar and with FAA air traffic control and a ship control agancy that I've forgotten the name of.  After we flew through the airspace ourselves, we turned around and flew through it again for our firing pass.  All that for a few hundred rounds of .50 cal with a few miles range before they splashed in the water.

No way that was a Navy missile being fired near civvie aircraft.  I'm all for the worn out wiring in the empty fuel tank theory.

Round hole in the wing?  Missiles don't make nice round holes.  I saw a B-52D model on the ground at Da Nang after a pretty solid hit with a SAM.  Lots of little holes from a proximity fuse.  Knocked out three engines & several fuel tanks on the left side.

Norm

it ran into a silenced, radar evading black helicopter.

This whole wiring in the fuel tank story is BS, and I'll tell you why.
 Jet fuel is yellow kerosene.  IT IS NOT EXPLOSIVE!!!!!!   I've been working on kerosene and #2 burner heating devices most of my life, and I can gaurantee you, that aircraft idin't blow up from a wiring problem in the fuel tank.  How many old cars are out there with faulty gas guages caused by a failed sending unit in the tank?  do they explode?
 The only way to cause ANY fuel to explode, is to vaporize it first.  Kerosene vaporizes at about 300 degrees.  If you can make a tank of kerosene 'vapor' explode as described, I'll kiss your a$$ at high noon on the town square, and give you all morning to draw a crowd.......

Didn't the plane crash shortly after it left the airport?  If so, why would they be flying with an empty fuel tank?

Matt VDW,  Commercial aircraft only fly with enough fuel to make it to their destination plus a safety factor.  It costs money to carry around the extra weight of unneeded fuel.  Also, the flash point of jet fuels (JP-5, Jp-6)is from 95-145 degrees F.  That is the point at which the fuel produces enough vapors to burn.  The explosive range is from 0.6%-3.7% vapor density in air.  That's why an empty tank is more dangerous than one which is full.

That's right, but weren't they about to fly across the Atlantic Ocean?  It seems as though they'd need more than a little fuel for that.  

Matt, The Atlantic is just a short hop for a 747.  They can fly the Pacific non-stop with fuel to spare.  As a matter of fact, I have to leave for the airport in a couple of hours to pick up my sons who are flying non-stop from Paris to San Francisco.

Rich

Yeah, what EOD guy said.  If the JP-4 that the 747 uses didn't vaporize at lower temps than 300F, you couldn't smell it.  Also, the fuel pumps are cooled by the fuel.  If they were left running in an empty tank, they could overheat and increase the vapor concentration.  

Empty tanks are like a fuel air bomb.  We always left a few hundred pounds in the buf tanks and switched off the pumps.  The co-pilot has a panel right in front of him for fuel gauges, valves & switchs.  It's an important part of the weight & balance so it gets a fair amount of attention.  Not sure how the 747 does it. May well be automated.

Norm

DK-Prof,

These are the same people that perpetuate the myth that we never went to the moon.

Out trying to make a buck out of someone's misery or someone elses success.

The witness testimony is all useless.  Why? Because noone was looking at the 747 before they heard a boom.  Meaning the plane had already exploded, and falling debris could make a "missile trail" and the average person would conclude it was shot down.

This is all the same conspiracy crap.  These people also will stare at an object moving in an unusual manner, and say UFO.  And will believe it was a UFO, even if it is proven to have been a 737 landing, and they were seeing it at an odd angle with the sun glinting off the plane which made it seem to be a flying saucer.

BTW: I have grainy footage of Elvis standing on the grassy nole shooting Kennedy with bazooka, before he was beamed up to a spaceship.  This was the biggest cover-up in history.  Only $199.99 to see the proof.

Edited by the men in black from area 51.

Ah, it's so refreshing to see some folks that don't buy into all of this conspiracy mumbo jumbo [:)]

I don't buy into the missile theory either. It's been stated on many occasions that the center fuel tank is only needed for non-stop Pacific flights like LA to Hong Kong. They also stated there is some kind of gas they are susposed to pump into empty tanks, but they don't always do it because of scheduling problems. Without the gas the fuel vapors are highly explosive. If there were a missile, it would need to be a fairly large one. The hand held jobs such as Stingers simply don't have the range.

Hi DKPROF.

We haven't corresponded in a while, but you are spot on as usual, sir.

First things first, for a "conspiracy" to be worth perpetrating, somebody must have something to gain.  Granted, we can't know everything, but nobody has even suggested WHY the gubmint, media, etc would cover up what "actually" occurred.  If there's no reason for a conspiracy, there isn't one.

Second, as one who has interview thousands of witnesses to events and taken the depositions of a similar number, Siamese twins observing an event will not recount the events the same.  I'm not talking about minor details, either, I'm talking about which vehicle, the giant white van or the civic, was on Main street and which was on Grand before they collided.  Usually both are wrong.  Eyewitness testimony is some of the most unreliable evidence available.  Ever play "telephone."  Granted, this amplifies the problem, but the problem is inescapable.

NOBODY was looking at that airliner until something drew their attention to it, same as any car wreck.  So nobody saw what happened BEFORE the wreck, they assumed what happened before by looking at the explosion after the boom and trying to speculate what had happened.

Don't believe me that nobody was looking at the plane in the seconds before the explosion?  OK, your version is EVERYBODY was staring at a plane which exhibited nothing unusual, nobody was doing anything which required their attention, like, say, piloting a HELICOPTER!?!?  Hundreds, I mean literally HUNDREDS of people somehow were fascinated by the routine event of an airliner (at night, so really only its lights) moving through the sky.

Tell you what, I'm a plane buff, my office overlooks an airport, I only glance at planes, and only then when movement or the sound of an interesting plane catches my attention.

Nobody was looking at that plane before something happened to it.

Also, after the very first witness said anything about a missile trail, every other witness who told a similar story was at least subconsciously vulnerable to adopting that version.

The more this theory gets press, the more certain witnesses become that they can be "helpful."

I saw some lady in a contemporary interview SWEARING that she saw men/"smoke" from the infamous grassy knoll (never mind that the Assasin probably would have avoided a muzzle).  She was VERY convincing.

Cut to the film taken days after the event, here's this SAME woman clearly stating that she dove for cover when she heard the first shot, that the knoll was BEHIND her (she was probably watching the frigging PRESIDENT at the time, as presumably that's why she was standing there in the first place).  She candidly admitted she was petrified and buried her head in her arms AND SAW NOTHING.  

Lastly, what the heck do most of these people know about what a missile looks like?

Edited to add, for example, when the idiot was acting up last weekend, driving his van around and waving a weapon, initial reports were that he had a machine gun, later an AR15 type weapon.  WHat did he really have, a TEC9, NOTHING like what was described.

Eyewitnesses are crappy evidence.

I've got two words for you people. Bird and Strike.[xx(]